In an exclusive interview with Today’s Media, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has responded to criticism in the national press.
The Times released an article on July 30th criticising the LeO for long wait times for people who claim to have been misled by their solicitors.
The LeO has responded by stating that The Times was inaccurate in their article, particularly around their early resolution initiatives, and the impact they are having on their customers. They assert these initiatives are focused on helping people.
Chief Ombudsman, Paul McFadden, has provided an interview directly addressing these criticisms below.
- The Legal Ombudsman has previously stated you are on course to halve the backlog by March 2023, is that still the case?
Yes. We are currently ahead of where we said we would be at this point in the year and the number of people waiting for their cases to be looked at has now been reducing for five months in a row.
That said, I fully recognise the impact that waiting times continue to have on our customers and have been very open about the fact that levels of service are not good enough for many people. The average wait time in pre-assessment is currently around 7 months. For some people, particularly those with the most complex cases, I realise this can be longer.
Our complete focus is on reducing the backlog and waiting times. Our people are working very hard to achieve this and the changes we have made are already having an impact, with many people experiencing a far shorter wait than would have otherwise been the case. Our plans are working and will lead to an improved experience for all of our customers in time. The clear priority for us is to get to that point as quickly as we can.
- There have been numerous complaints regarding rule 5.7 which states an investigation is not necessary if a “reasonable offer” to compensate is made. What constitutes a reasonable offer?
Scheme Rule 5.7 is a long-standing and important element of the Legal Ombudsman’s framework. It outlines the situations in which an Ombudsman can consider exercising the discretion to dismiss or discontinue a complaint in full or in part if they consider it fair and reasonable to do so in the circumstances of the complaint.
Scheme Rules 5.7(c) specifically allows us to dismiss a complaint where an authorised person has already offered fair and reasonable redress which reflects the impact of the service received, and the offer is still open for acceptance. What is reasonable will depend on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. An offer is likely to be reasonable if, when looking at the complaints that have been raised, we consider that the that the remedy offered by the service provider at first tier suitably reflects the impact of any poor service and is unlikely to be exceeded through a LeO investigation.
- Do you have any comments regarding Emily Barnes’, the complainant in The Times article?
The most important thing is to recognise the frustrations felt by Ms Barnes. I am sorry that she has had a negative experience of the Legal Ombudsman. People come to the Legal Ombudsman at some of the most difficult and challenging times in their lives and it is important to me that they get a service that is responsive and a decision that is fair.
There was a clear and sound rationale behind the decision reached in this case, based on the offer made by the service provider being a reasonable one in the circumstances. This was a decision reached under Rule 5.7, something that has always been a part of the Legal Ombudsman’s legal framework. This is an appropriate way of resolving complaints where an issue has already been put right in the way we would expect it to be.
The decision on Ms Barnes’ case was not impacted by the changes to our ways of working and focus on early resolution. A complaint like this reaching us today would likely get to an outcome at a much earlier point as a result of the changes we have introduced over the last year.
- Do you have any comments on the findings in The Times that the legal ombudsman has the second lowest rating on Trustpilot for all ombudsman services?
The very nature of legal redress – and Ombudsman schemes’ work more generally – is highly emotive. People access legal services at often stressful and upsetting times in their lives, so when something goes wrong, and people believe they’ve been treated unfairly, this can be exacerbated.
Our role is to be impartial and make decisions which are reasonable and fair. If, after reviewing the evidence, we do not ask a service provider to take further action, it can be difficult for complainants and can lead to negative feedback. Some people choose to put this feedback online, and we do of course take this seriously.
I appreciate and understand frustrations expressed, particularly around waiting times which I have been very open about and acknowledge as unacceptable for our customers. But it is a challenge we are very focused on resolving and we are making significant progress in improving the situation for our customers.
As you would expect, we have our own robust quality assurance and customer satisfaction mechanisms in place, where both consumers and service providers have a chance to share feedback on their experience with us. We use this information to ensure that we can identify any emerging or ongoing issues with the level of service we are providing. We also receive positive feedback through our customer satisfaction surveys on the way their investigations were progressed and how the investigator engaged with them.
- It has been reported that robotic process automation has been used in just under half of complaints in 2021/22. How do you ensure these are accurately processed?
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is being used to autonomously process complaint forms sent in by our customers through our website. It is important to note that this automation plays absolutely no role in investigative or decision-making processes – it is only used to make our administrative processes more efficient and less time-consuming, which in turn helps us to improve our service to customers.
Before RPA, processing complaint forms was a manual task undertaken by our General Enquiries Team on receipt of a complaint. RPA eliminates the risk of human error and ensures that the information provided by the customer on their complaint form is transferred to our Case Management System with absolute accuracy.
- In an attempt to speed up the process, will it not make it more likely that the Legal Ombudsman choose not to investigate something that they should have, therefore causing more difficulties for complainants?
There are two linked issues here – how we apply one of our Scheme Rules, which has always been in place, and more recent changes we have made so that we resolve more complaints at an early stage where it’s appropriate for us to do so.
All Ombudsman schemes have rules that set out how they work, and some rules are there to ensure that we only look at or investigate cases where we can really add value and where it is proportionate to do so. It isn’t right to take people through a full and formal investigation process when it is clear on the evidence at an early stage that the decision will not change as a result. People who complain to us will have already made a complaint to their service provider, and it’s in everyone’s interests that we assess and explain whether we think the provider has already settled the issue fairly and reasonably.
Our Scheme Rule 5.7- the ground for dismissing or discontinuing a complaint- is not a new approach and is central to the legal framework established around LeO and is an appropriate approach to redress. One option available to LeO under Scheme Rule 5.7 is Rule 5.7(c), which enables us to “dismiss” a case where there is already a fair and reasonable offer on the table. A complaint will only be dismissed if an Ombudsman is certain that the customer received poor service, that the offer made at first tier was reasonable recompense for the impact of poor service, and, crucially, that the offer was unlikely to be exceeded through a LeO Investigation.
Our new early resolution initiatives have been designed to avoid delays and ensure that the most appropriate outcome is reached at the earliest possible opportunity. The same outcomes are delivered, but earlier on, by putting our most experienced Ombudsmen at the start of our process. Similar approaches are applied widely throughout the Ombudsman and redress sector and ensure that complaints that do not require detailed investigations are instead resolved through a more targeted and proportionate approach.
Our job is to make impartial, fair and reasonable decisions and our new ways of working make sure we are doing that and reaching the right outcome at the earliest possible point.
